Every single new member whether Muslim or Christian in this forum should exceed a certain amount of responses to have his post posted , this also applied to me , I have been here since February and I only got updated recently because I have exceeded a certain amount of responses.Again the rules apply to all members.

peace

Since February? How many posts or responses have you made before you got updated to post directly without limitation to 3 threads if you even received that limitation? Your silence will confirm Pandora's comment.

Since February? How many posts or responses have you made before you got updated to post directly without limitation to 3 threads if you even received that limitation? Your silence will confirm Pandora's comment.
peace

brotherمحمد سني 1989 is not anew member ; he is a distinctive one !!!!
thedistinctive member is allowed to post directly .

I just want to add regarding the forums rules, there are limits when you start but the limit of the posts, I am sure because you two are spamming the whole forum, it is nothing to do with you been Christians, because you are implying that, and playing the victims here.

It is forum etiquette that people post reasonable amount, and do not spam the whole place, either religious or not, I use to be in a forum ( not faith based ) and new members who do that get banned., because you are not giving the chance to others to respond.

I am normal member here now after been limited to posts etc but I don’t go spamming the whole forum, if you look at the sticky threads all of them, has burninglight name last lol, I guess you guys forced the management to implement the 3 threads rule, so as my brother moderator said Stop complaining!

Lets not go round in circles on this issue.. I will leave it with. You have not answered all of my questions to my satisfaction. You have expressed your opinion and expect me to agree...!

Quote

What something!!!! and what about the different understanding of this passage such as the understanding of the Samaritans !!! Is their understanding based on something!!!!

This is speculation there is no proof here

I did so as the Samaritans who also belief in Genisis and the first five books which composes the Torah and still reach to the conclusion that Moriah is not in the temple mount rather it is mountain Jerzeem .

Why have you introduced the beliefs of the Samaritans? I thought we were talking about people of the book.. i:e Jews and Christians? There was no love lost between the Jews and Samaritans and you should be surprised that they held a different point of view from the Jews of the time. You are speculating here... You can read the rest of the article the link is at the bottom.. Should you wish. I do not see the relevance of the beliefs of Samaritans where it pertains to the question of Temple Mount.

Additional grounds for animosity between the Israelites and Samaritans were the following:

1. The Jews, after their return from Babylon, began rebuilding their temple. While Nehemiah was engaged in building the walls of Jerusalem, the Samaritans vigorously attempted to halt the undertaking (Nehemiah 6:1-14).

2. The Samaritans built a temple for themselves on “Mount Gerizim,” which the Samaritans insisted was designated by Moses as the place where the nation should worship. Sanballat, the leader of the Samaritans, established his son-in-law, Manasses, as high priest. The idolatrous religion of the Samaritans thus became perpetuated.

3. Samaria became a place of refuge for all the outlaws of Judea (Joshua 20:7; 21:21). The Samaritans willingly received Jewish criminals and refugees from justice. The violators of the Jewish laws, and those who had been excommunicated, found safety for themselves in Samaria, greatly increasing the hatred which existed between the two nations.

4. The Samaritans received only the five books of Moses and rejected the writings of the prophets and all the Jewish traditions.

From these causes arose an irreconcilable difference between them, so that the Jews regarded the Samaritans as the worst of the human race (John 8:48) and had no dealings with them (John 4:9). In spite of the hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans, Jesus broke down the barriers between them, preaching the gospel of peace to the Samaritans (John 4:6-26), and the apostles later followed His example (Acts 8:25).

It is my belief the Bible records Gods words and intentions. On that basis there is no contradictions and no ambiguity. It clearly says what it says. Obviously you do not respect the Bible and seek to twist the words to your own interpretation to suit your agenda. It's not working. At least from my standpoint.

Quote

Second this was not the section I was talking about which you did not answer rather it was what you quoted in response number 38

Your posts are too long, if I miss something I apologise. I do not use a PC and scrolling up the screen is tiresome if posts are long it's possible I may unintentionally miss something.

Quote

However I will still address what you said here

Yes we believe the miracle birth of Isaac but what has this to do with anything , god blessed both and brought both to this world to bring prophets from their dicendents and to bring their followers too from their linage. Ishmael is still Abraham's son and he was blessed. This still does not show any superiority remember Moses and Aron were not Joseph's decendents.

Seriously... You think the miracle surrounding the birth of Isaac carries no significance??? Isaacs birth was decided by God.. Without Gods divine intervention Isaac would not have been born. Ishmael, on the other hand.. Was born from Abrahams lack of faith in Gods promised provision of a son and Sarah's impatience. If God willed that Ishmael born through mans actions then there would have been no need for Isaac to ever exist. God could have made Ishmael the child of promise. God did no such thing.. God does not need to lay out His plan for mankind word for word as God has no need to answer to us His creation. Yet, everything we are and will ever be is part of that plan, Ishmael has a part to play and that is why he was blessed. God fulfilled His promise to Abraham in regards to Ishmael. No where does God promise prophets will come from his linage.

Quote

You have to read it within the whole context :

15Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16"I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."17Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"18And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"19But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him 20"As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.…

The context of the passage clearly shows god telling Abraham I have heard you meaning heard your prayer and accepted , So god blessed him and made him a great nation and as I described a great nation before from the bible is one which has a law and worships god and blesses Abraham. This same term god used on Abraham before :

Now The Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing
. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:1-3 RSV)

Another discription falls into Ishmael too:

"But God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your descendants be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring." (Genesis 21:12-13 RSV)

This is within the same meaning as above God hears Abraham's request with Ishmael because he is simply the offspring of Abraham

Genesis 18:11-12 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, well advanced in age; and Sarah had passed the age of childbearing. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?”

The text never said anything about a plan , this is your personal interpritation. As I have showed above God still according to the biblical writers still told that he has heard Abraham

However there is a very big important point which I need to clarify here :
The original King James bible DOES NOT have the word "No" in it the text is simply :

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him (GENESIS 17:19)

What is really ironic too is that in the new international version you got the word "Yes" instead of "No"

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.GENESIS 17:19
New International version

So your whole argument which was based on No cannot have an accurate basis

I do wish you would read it in context... I shall address the points you have highlighted, if you still require further detail then you will have to make another post.in order from

1. ***Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!*** Abraham, realising that the covenant was to be established in another branch of his family... Isaac.. felt worried for his son Ishmael, whom he considered as necessarily excluded, note.. Ishmael was Abrahams only son up to this point and there is no doubt he loved him as a father would love a son. Out of divine mercy and love God delivers the prophecy which contains an answer to the prayer and wish of Abraham...

2. ***As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation*** The object of Abraham's prayer was, that his son Ishmael might be the head of a prosperous and potent people. Abraham knew that it was not Gods will that Ishmael would be part of the covenantal promise but still hoped good things for his son. Which God provided. God by His actions in enabling Isaac to be born had already decided Ishmael was to be excluded. No prophets would come from Ishmael.

3. ***And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring."*** yes! make a nation, even a great nation. This greatness could also imply great in number... Which for sure the evidence can be seen today. No where does God promise that prophets will come from Ishmael.

4.***The original King James bible DOES NOT have the word "No" in it the text is simply*** I have no need to check, I notice you quote many times from the KJB. Maybe you feel more comfortable with this version due to its use of archaic language which is similar to the language used in the Quran... Well, I mean when translated into English the language used appears to be similar. A more accurate translation in this case would be NIV. However, yes or no can equally be used here... Either way.. God hears Abraham but has already decided.. The matter was decided long before Ishmael was born.

Quote

Continue the passage :22When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.23Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him 24Now Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.26In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son[COLOR=#001320][FONT=Trebuchet]Genesis 17: 22-26

Genesis 17 which talks about the covenant of circumcission ends here

I don't see the point of spending much time on this as there is no doubt that Ishmael was son of Abraham and was circumcised according to what God decreed... As all males were so circumcised to come under the covenant as it was a required sign. It has nothing to do with being a future prophet.

Quote

Again you are claming that my objection is to god rather it is to the writers of the bible. AS I said before we believe your scripture is corrupted so when I say that I am objecting somehow it is not on God , God forbid rather on the Jewish writers of the bible . such establishment of covenant only to Isaac seems very doubtfull based on the fact that Abraham also cried for his son Ishmael and that god responded by saying he has heard it and he has blessed his son Ishmael and he will have a great nation plus the idea and the contradiction still places itself when it is stated take your ONLY SON , this no matter what explanation is provided does not remove the contradiction for God did not say take your only son whom I have established the covenant with!!!

As for the number of nations well God said :16And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

So god said kings of people , meaning who rule . This refers to actual kings ;

and she shall be a mother of nations; of the twelve tribes of Israel; of the two nations of Israel and Judah:

kings of people shall be of her; as David, Solomon, and others, and especially the King Messiah.

Great nation supresedes many nations since there were no mention of greatness one can say so !!!

peace

to my mind your objection is with God on this matter, as I said already.. It's my belief the Bible accurately records this account and from a Biblical perspective it makes perfect sense and there are no contradictions. The contradictions are in your own mind because the Biblical account does not tie in with your belief... Therefore you have to twist things to fit your belief .. When you can't you must cry corruption of the text. With no proof of who, why, when or where that's a pretty poor strategy. It makes no difference to the Bible... It will continue to stand on its own message.

***So god said kings of people , meaning who rule . This refers to actual kings ;*** this is your interpretation. Just to note Jesus was also a King... How great is that..

John 18:36New International Version (NIV)

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

ince he saw the kingdom of Ishmael that was coming, he began to say: "Was it not enough what the wicked kingdom of Edom has done to us,

but [we deserve] the kingdom of Ishmael too?

" At once Metatron, the foremost angel (sar ha-penim), answered him and said: "Do not fear, son of man,

for the Almighty only brings the kingdom of Ishmael

in order to deliver you from this wicked one (Edom).

He raises up over them (Ishmaelites) a prophet according to His will and He will conquer the land for them

, and they will come and restore it to greatness, and a great dread will come between them and the sons of Esau." Rabbi Simon answered him and said: "How [is it known] that they are our salvation?" He (Metatron) said to him:

"Did not the prophet Isaiah say that 'he saw a chariot with a pair of horsemen etc.'? Why did he put hte chariot of asses before the chariot of camels when he should rather have said 'a chariot of camels and [then] a chariot of asses,' because when he (Ishmael, i.e. the Arabs) goes forth [to war], he rides upon on a camel, and when the kingdom will arise by his hands he rides upon an ass? [

Given that he said the reverse of this], the chariot of asses, since he (the Messiah) rides upon an ass,

shows that they (the Ishmaelites, represented by the chariot of camels

[COLOR=#001320][RIGHT]) are a salvation for Israel, like the salvation of the rider on an ass (i.e. the Messiah)."

Source : (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 78-79 [pp. 309-310]

Rabbi Shimon bin Yohai is one of the fundimental and honered rabbis in the maintsream Jusaism (Not just The kabbala)

As for Chariots :

A chariot with a couple of horsemen; rather, a troop of horsemen riding two and two. This is exactly how a cavalry force was ordinarily represented by the Assyrians. Chariots are not intended either here or in ver. 9. They were not employed by the Persians until a late period of their history (see 'Ancient Monarchies,' vol. 4. pp. 113, 122). A chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels; rather, men mounted on asses and on camels. It is well known that both animals were employed by the Persians in their expeditions to carry the baggage (Herod., 1:80; 4:129; Xen., 'Cyrop.,' 7:1, etc.). But neither animal was ever attached to a chariot.

Source : pulpit commentary

Also see:

And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen - This passage is very obscure from the ambiguity of the word rekeb - 'chariot.' Gesenius contends that it should be rendered 'cavalry,' and that it refers to cavalry two abreast hastening to the destruction of the city. The word rekeb denotes properly a chariot or wagon Judges 5:28; a collection of wagons 2 Chronicles 1:14; 2 Chronicles 8:6; 2 Chronicles 9:25; and sometimes refers to the "horses or men" attached to a chariot. 'David houghed all the chariots' 2 Samuel 8:4; that is, all the "horses" belonging to them. 'David killed of the Syrians seven hundred chariots' 2 Samuel 10:18; that is, all "the men" belonging to seven hundred chariots. According to the present Masoretic pointing, the word rekeb does not mean, perhaps, anything else than a chariot strictly, but other forms of the word with the same letters denote "riders or cavalry." Thus, the word rakâb denotes a horseman2 Kings 9:17; a charioteer or driver of a chariot 1 Kings 22:34; Jeremiah 51:21. The verb râbab means "to ride," and is usually applied to riding on the backs of horses or camels; and the sense here is, that the watchman saw "a riding," or persons riding two abreast; that is, "cavalry," or men borne on horses, and camels, and asses, and hastening to attack the city.With a couple of horsemen - The word 'couple' ( tsemed) means properly a "yoke or pair;" and it means here that the cavalry was seen "in pairs, that is," two abreast.A chariot of asses - Or rather, as above, "a riding" on donkeys - an approach of men in this manner to battle.Asses were formerly used in war where ............[FONT=Trebuchet]And a chariot of camels - A "riding" on camels. Camels also were used in war, perhaps usually to carry the baggage (see Diod. ii. 54; iii. 44; Livy, xxxvii. 40; Strabo, xvi. 3). They are used for all purposes of burden in the East, and particularly in Arabia.

Source : Barne's notes on the bible

So chariots simply means riders on camels and donkeys

To me it appears you are twisting things again. If the chariots of camels represent the Ishmaelites it does still not make it a prophecy in regards to your prophet. God, often used nations against nations to His will. It is an account of the fall of Babylon.

I was very reluctant to answer or respond to this part simply because I felt it is not my place to answer , I usually tend to avoid responding to anything that has to do with the mediator of the forum. But since you are applying it to religous reasons I have to respond. Every single new member whether Muslim or Christian in this forum should exceed a certain amount of responses to have his post posted , this also applied to me , I have been here since February and I only got updated recently because I have exceeded a certain amount of responses.Again the rules apply to all members.

peace

I appreciate your candour.. But please be honest. I have been a member on this forum since 2012 in two years I have 670 posts to my name in the six months you have made approx half the number of posts and are allowed to post in any number of threads you wish and even edit your posts. I can only post in three threads at any time... And this been recently decided, which after a membership of two years I found most odd!! The difference that shouts at me is the fact you are a Muslim and I am not. Which seems in all intents and purposes religious discrimination. I have never spammed this forum I have always answered posts courteously even when provoked and insulted I at all times try my best to remain polite.. If otherwise I fail my God. If at any time I show rudeness or loose my cool I pray my God forgive me, and would be the first to offer an apology to any member I inadvertently caused offence to.

Anyway, i do find it a cause for sadness that there is not a level field on this forum and it is the only forum I have seen this method in regards to non muslims. But as we say life is not always fair or just.

ince he saw the kingdom of Ishmael that was coming, he began to say: "Was it not enough what the wicked kingdom of Edom has done to us,

but [we deserve] the kingdom of Ishmael too?

" At once Metatron, the foremost angel (sar ha-penim), answered him and said: "Do not fear, son of man,

for the Almighty only brings the kingdom of Ishmael

in order to deliver you from this wicked one (Edom).

He raises up over them (Ishmaelites) a prophet according to His will and He will conquer the land for them

, and they will come and restore it to greatness, and a great dread will come between them and the sons of Esau." Rabbi Simon answered him and said: "How [is it known] that they are our salvation?" He (Metatron) said to him:

"Did not the prophet Isaiah say that 'he saw a chariot with a pair of horsemen etc.'? Why did he put hte chariot of asses before the chariot of camels when he should rather have said 'a chariot of camels and [then] a chariot of asses,' because when he (Ishmael, i.e. the Arabs) goes forth [to war], he rides upon on a camel, and when the kingdom will arise by his hands he rides upon an ass? [

Given that he said the reverse of this], the chariot of asses, since he (the Messiah) rides upon an ass,

shows that they (the Ishmaelites, represented by the chariot of camels

[COLOR=#001320][RIGHT]) are a salvation for Israel, like the salvation of the rider on an ass (i.e. the Messiah)."

Source : (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 78-79 [pp. 309-310]

Rabbi Shimon bin Yohai is one of the fundimental and honered rabbis in the maintsream Jusaism (Not just The kabbala)

As for Chariots :

A chariot with a couple of horsemen; rather, a troop of horsemen riding two and two. This is exactly how a cavalry force was ordinarily represented by the Assyrians. Chariots are not intended either here or in ver. 9. They were not employed by the Persians until a late period of their history (see 'Ancient Monarchies,' vol. 4. pp. 113, 122). A chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels; rather, men mounted on asses and on camels. It is well known that both animals were employed by the Persians in their expeditions to carry the baggage (Herod., 1:80; 4:129; Xen., 'Cyrop.,' 7:1, etc.). But neither animal was ever attached to a chariot.

Source : pulpit commentary

Also see:

And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen - This passage is very obscure from the ambiguity of the word rekeb - 'chariot.' Gesenius contends that it should be rendered 'cavalry,' and that it refers to cavalry two abreast hastening to the destruction of the city. The word rekeb denotes properly a chariot or wagon Judges 5:28; a collection of wagons 2 Chronicles 1:14; 2 Chronicles 8:6; 2 Chronicles 9:25; and sometimes refers to the "horses or men" attached to a chariot. 'David houghed all the chariots' 2 Samuel 8:4; that is, all the "horses" belonging to them. 'David killed of the Syrians seven hundred chariots' 2 Samuel 10:18; that is, all "the men" belonging to seven hundred chariots. According to the present Masoretic pointing, the word rekeb does not mean, perhaps, anything else than a chariot strictly, but other forms of the word with the same letters denote "riders or cavalry." Thus, the word rakâb denotes a horseman2 Kings 9:17; a charioteer or driver of a chariot 1 Kings 22:34; Jeremiah 51:21. The verb râbab means "to ride," and is usually applied to riding on the backs of horses or camels; and the sense here is, that the watchman saw "a riding," or persons riding two abreast; that is, "cavalry," or men borne on horses, and camels, and asses, and hastening to attack the city.With a couple of horsemen - The word 'couple' ( tsemed) means properly a "yoke or pair;" and it means here that the cavalry was seen "in pairs, that is," two abreast.A chariot of asses - Or rather, as above, "a riding" on donkeys - an approach of men in this manner to battle.Asses were formerly used in war where ............[FONT=Trebuchet]And a chariot of camels - A "riding" on camels. Camels also were used in war, perhaps usually to carry the baggage (see Diod. ii. 54; iii. 44; Livy, xxxvii. 40; Strabo, xvi. 3). They are used for all purposes of burden in the East, and particularly in Arabia.

Source : Barne's notes on the bible

So chariots simply means riders on camels and donkeys

I was very reluctant to answer or respond to this part simply because I felt it is not my place to answer , I usually tend to avoid responding to anything that has to do with the mediator of the forum. But since you are applying it to religous reasons I have to respond. Every single new member whether Muslim or Christian in this forum should exceed a certain amount of responses to have his post posted , this also applied to me , I have been here since February and I only got updated recently because I have exceeded a certain amount of responses.Again the rules apply to all members.

peace

Quote

Originally Posted by huria

I just want to add regarding the forums rules, there are limits when you start but the limit of the posts, I am sure because you two are spamming the whole forum, it is nothing to do with you been Christians, because you are implying that, and playing the victims here.

It is forum etiquette that people post reasonable amount, and do not spam the whole place, either religious or not, I use to be in a forum ( not faith based ) and new members who do that get banned., because you are not giving the chance to others to respond.

I am normal member here now after been limited to posts etc but I don’t go spamming the whole forum, if you look at the sticky threads all of them, has burninglight name last lol, I guess you guys forced the management to implement the 3 threads rule, so as my brother moderator said Stop complaining!

Huria, dear... Where have I spammed posts? I am not a new member I have been here two years and still not allowed to even edit my posts for typos or errors? Is one not allowed to complain of a perceived injustice? I accept you make up the rules .. Not you personally.. I talk in general term..I also accept rules are a necessity. However, I think they should be fair and without bias. The latest rules does not seem to be either. It has taken some of the pleasure out of dialogue with members here... And I have had some interesting debates with some very nice muslims. It's just a bit sad to see that go.

Lets not go round in circles on this issue.. I will leave it with. You have not answered all of my questions to my satisfaction. You have expressed your opinion and expect me to agree...!

LOL to your satisfaction!!! I honestly I am not looking for your satisfaction or anybody else , it is merely presenting the facts and the reader will see who has the truth on his side . I actually see most of your responses as absolutely unsatisfactory .

But when you say I have not addressed all your questions it alludes that I ignored your responses which I did not.

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

Why have you introduced the beliefs of the Samaritans? I thought we were talking about people of the book.. i:e Jews and Christians? There was no love lost between the Jews and Samaritans and you should be surprised that they held a different point of view from the Jews of the time. You are speculating here... You can read the rest of the article the link is at the bottom.. Should you wish. I do not see the relevance of the beliefs of Samaritans where it pertains to the question of Temple Mount.

First I am not going to debate links

Second the Samaritans are considered people of the book in Islam not just Jews and christians. Also the old christian sects like nestorians and gnostics are also considered people of the book

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

Additional grounds for animosity between the Israelites and Samaritans were the following:

1. The Jews, after their return from Babylon, began rebuilding their temple. While Nehemiah was engaged in building the walls of Jerusalem, the Samaritans vigorously attempted to halt the undertaking (Nehemiah 6:1-14).

2. The Samaritans built a temple for themselves on “Mount Gerizim,” which the Samaritans insisted was designated by Moses as the place where the nation should worship. Sanballat, the leader of the Samaritans, established his son-in-law, Manasses, as high priest. The idolatrous religion of the Samaritans thus became perpetuated.

3. Samaria became a place of refuge for all the outlaws of Judea (Joshua 20:7; 21:21). The Samaritans willingly received Jewish criminals and refugees from justice. The violators of the Jewish laws, and those who had been excommunicated, found safety for themselves in Samaria, greatly increasing the hatred which existed between the two nations.

4. The Samaritans received only the five books of Moses and rejected the writings of the prophets and all the Jewish traditions.

From these causes arose an irreconcilable difference between them, so that the Jews regarded the Samaritans as the worst of the human race (John 8:48) and had no dealings with them (John 4:9). In spite of the hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans, Jesus broke down the barriers between them, preaching the gospel of peace to the Samaritans (John 4:6-26), and the apostles later followed His example (Acts 8:25).

What does this have to do with our discussion . I already know these facts !!!.

One fact you missed is that the Samaritans do not believe in the book of ezra and chronicles as a matter of fact Ezra peace be upon him is not considered a prophet in the Samaritan religion. There rabbianic ( If I could say so ) holds that the mountain of Jerzim is the actual temple mount

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

It is my belief the Bible records Gods words and intentions. On that basis there is no contradictions and no ambiguity. It clearly says what it says. Obviously you do not respect the Bible and seek to twist the words to your own interpretation to suit your agenda. It's not working. At least from my standpoint.

Where did I twist , is it not the bible writers who wrote your only son, is it not the bible writers who did not indicate where was mountain Moriah in Genesis !!!!

[

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

Your posts are too long, if I miss something I apologise. I do not use a PC and scrolling up the screen is tiresome if posts are long it's possible I may unintentionally miss something.

No problem , my posts are usually long because I quote passages from the bible and there jewish and christian interpritations , so next time I will try to make it short

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

Seriously... You think the miracle surrounding the birth of Isaac carries no significance??? Isaacs birth was decided by God.. Without Gods divine intervention Isaac would not have been born.

I never said that all I said that the miracolous birth of Isaac is of importance to show a gift from god to Isaac's parents , The miraclous birth is a gift to Sara and Abraham , the same happened with John the baptist it is a gift to their parents and nothing to do with the covenant , John had no covenant related to his offspring.

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

Ishmael, on the other hand.. Was born from Abrahams lack of faith in Gods promised provision of a son and Sarah's impatience. If God willed that Ishmael born through mans actions then there would have been no need for Isaac to ever exist. God could have made Ishmael the child of promise. God did no such thing.. God does not need to lay out His plan for mankind word for word as God has no need to answer to us His creation. Yet, everything we are and will ever be is part of that plan, Ishmael has a part to play and that is why he was blessed. God fulfilled His promise to Abraham in regards to Ishmael. No where does God promise prophets will come from his linage.

Your explanation is based on the understanding that Abraham the prophet of God and the highest pariarch has a lack of faith!!!!!
This is were we differ with the bible , we do not believe that Abraham had a lack of faith ever , on the contrary in fact , he always believed in God. He took Hagar as a concubine in Islam as a lawful thing to do at that time which people had wives and concubines. From the context of the bible Abraham also loved Ishmael and god blessed him.

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

I do wish you would read it in context... I shall address the points you have highlighted, if you still require further detail then you will have to make another post.in order from

1. ***Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!*** Abraham, realising that the covenant was to be established in another branch of his family... Isaac.. felt worried for his son Ishmael, whom he considered as necessarily excluded, note.. Ishmael was Abrahams only son up to this point and there is no doubt he loved him as a father would love a son. Out of divine mercy and love God delivers the prophecy which contains an answer to the prayer and wish of Abraham...

2. ***As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation*** The object of Abraham's prayer was, that his son Ishmael might be the head of a prosperous and potent people. Abraham knew that it was not Gods will that Ishmael would be part of the covenantal promise but still hoped good things for his son. Which God provided. God by His actions in enabling Isaac to be born had already decided Ishmael was to be excluded. No prophets would come from Ishmael.

Nope the context is talking about blessings which Ishmael was blessed , yet no disclusion of Ishmael was included:

"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." 15Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.16"I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

This was Isaac's part , Abraham asks about Ishmael's part and his blessing;

17Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"18

Ishmael's blessing as Isaac before him :

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

So Abraham was asking about blessings and god heard Abraham and so he will have a great nation one that bows to god and has a law

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

3. ***And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring."*** yes! make a nation, even a great nation. This greatness could also imply great in number... Which for sure the evidence can be seen today. No where does God promise that prophets will come from Ishmael.

No not numbers or the nation from Isaac would be reffering to numbers also

great nation from the bible :

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Genesis 12: 2

Verses 2, 3. - And I will make of thee a great nation. A compensation for leaving his small kindred. The nation should be great

(1) numerically (Keil, Rosenmüller),

(2) influentially (Kalisch, Inglis),

(3) spiritually (Luther, Wordsworth). And I will bless thee. Temporally (Pererius, Murphy), with every kind of good (Rosenmüller), in particular with offspring (Vatablus); but also spiritually (Rupertus, Bush), in the sense.

Source : pulpit commentary

Another in the bible :

What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 4:7-8)"

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

4.***The original King James bible DOES NOT have the word "No" in it the text is simply*** I have no need to check, I notice you quote many times from the KJB. Maybe you feel more comfortable with this version due to its use of archaic language which is similar to the language used in the Quran... Well, I mean when translated into English the language used appears to be similar. A more accurate translation in this case would be NIV. However, yes or no can equally be used here... Either way.. God hears Abraham but has already decided.. The matter was decided long before Ishmael was born.

I think you already know that the king james bible is the oldest english translation. Also there is a difference between Yes and No , so when one translation uses No and the other uses Yes there has to be a big question mark raised .

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

I don't see the point of spending much time on this as there is no doubt that Ishmael was son of Abraham and was circumcised according to what God decreed... As all males were so circumcised to come under the covenant as it was a required sign. It has nothing to do with being a future prophet.

Yes it has nothing to do with our topic and thats my point as a response to yours

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

to my mind your objection is with God on this matter, as I said already.. It's my belief the Bible accurately records this account and from a Biblical perspective it makes perfect sense and there are no contradictions.

No my problem is with the writers of the bible who in order to extremely glorfy their geneology they went into such depths as picturing Abraham as a man with a lack of faith.

Quote

Originally Posted by ;pandora

The contradictions are in your own mind because the Biblical account does not tie in with your belief... Therefore you have to twist things to fit your belief .. When you can't you must cry corruption of the text. With no proof of who, why, when or where that's a pretty poor strategy. It makes no difference to the Bible... It will continue to stand on its own message.

This shows a need for cry to help from your part. I wasn't the first to rise such question , You were shown that frances worthington raised this question too. Any man with common sense would raise such question too when you tell him that Ishmael was older than Isaac and the biblical writers wrote Isaac his only son!!!! Surely many before raised this question. Your attempt to shut such questions is asking others to believe while keeping a blind eye to the truth !!!! Just open one eye and keep the other shut !!! You noncontradicting non irrational bible exists only in your fantasy

[/QUOTE]

***So god said kings of people , meaning who rule . This refers to actual kings ;*** this is your interpretation. Just to note Jesus was also a King

Peace unto you[/QUOTE]

That is not my interpritation rather Gill's interpritation of the bible :

kings of people shall be of her; as David, Solomon, and others, and especially the King Messiah.

To me it appears you are twisting things again. If the chariots of camels represent the Ishmaelites it does still not make it a prophecy in regards to your prophet. God, often used nations against nations to His will. It is an account of the fall of Babylon.

Where did I twist , I only copied YOUR CHRISTIAN INTERPIRATORS nothing more nothing less!!!!

It does not reference Babylon because the fall of Babylon was a part of the prophecy plus it the prophecy about babylon was mostly included in the first section which is the burdon on the desert by the sea

conquer the land is talking about the muslim conquest of palestine accordong to Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai